prosecution's failure to produce the said statement squarely amounts to withholding of evidence. In a similar situation which arose in the case of OGUDU VS THE STATE (Supra) where the learned trial Judge had held that failure to tender the statement made by the accused at the 1st Police Station would not have made any difference in the finding of the Court, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed. Fabiyi, JSC had this to say: "The Appellant said he made a statement at Birnin Gwari Police Station. The same was not tendered during his trial. The prosecution has a duty to tender any statement made by an accused person during the investigation of the offence with which he was charged whether or not it is in his favour. See DANDARE VS THE STATE (1967) NMLR 56. This must be so in order to avoid the invocation of the provision of Section 149 (1) (d) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution which failed to tender the vital statement... The above view, with due diffidence, flies in the face of my views as stated above. The statement must be tendered in the first instance before one can surmise difference it will have on the finding of the trial Court". Similarly, the same Apex Court emphatically restated the law in the case of PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE VS UMARU (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 737) 679 Per I.T. Muh'd. when he held: "...What paragraph (d) of Section 149 (now Section 167 [d]) of the Evidence Act stipulates is that where a party claims to have evidence that goes to show the existence of a document in proof of his case, the document should be tendered. Where such evidence could be produced but it is not produced, it is presumed to be against the interest of the party withholding it. See EBOH VS PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (1987) 2 QLRN 167; GEORGE VS THE STATE (2009) 1 NWLR (PART 1122)." ?As in the aforestated decided authorities and the clear provision of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, the prosecution who admitted that the Appellant's first statement made at the Police Station, Bamaina, was in his case file ought to have tendered same in evidence whether it was favourable to its case or to the Appellant's defence. The failure of the prosecution to tender that statement amounts to withholding evidence and the Court would presume that the statement would have been detrimental to its case if produced. To deprive the Appellant the use of his first statement to the Police at the first Police Station prior to Exhibit A, as held per Rhodes - Vivour JSC in the OGUDU's case (Supra) at Page 31, paragraphs E G, renders the trial unfair. The same decree was reinforced in the case of OLAYINKA VS THE STATE (Supra), by the same Court when it held that "in the absence of the statement of the Appellant made prior to his making of Exhibit A, the Appellant could not be held to have had a fair trial guaranteed even under the Constitution". ?Indeed the failure to tender the said statement in the prosecution's case file has the effect of casting a doubt on the veracity of Exhibit A. Sadly, therefore, on the strength of these authorities, the prosecution's failure to tender the said Appellant's first statement he made at the 1st Police Station at Bamaina, has had a serious consequence on the prosecution's case. The provision of